In the next few months, Intel will sell a limited number of software- …

Share this story

Intel is about to experiment with a new concept in mass-market processors with its forthcoming Pentium G6951 CPU: upgradability. The chips will be upgradable by end users via a purchased code that is punched in to a special program. Previews of the processor quietly hit the Web last month, and with Engadget's post of the retail packaging, people took notice with reactions ranging from surprise to outright disgust.

The Pentium G6951 is a low-end processor. Dual core, 2.8GHz, 3 MB cache, and expected to be around $90 each when bought in bulk—identical to the already-shipping Pentium G6950. The special part is the software unlock. Buy an unlock code for around $50, run the software downloaded from Intel's site, and your processor will get two new features: hyperthreading will be enabled, and another 1 MB of cache will be unlocked, giving the chip a specification just short of Intel's lowest Core i3-branded processor, the 2.93 GHz Core i3-530. Once unlocked, the G6951 becomes a G6952.

The processors will ship as part of a pilot program next quarter to a select number of resellers in just four markets: US, Canada, the Netherlands, and Spain. Systems with the G6951 will have to use one of two specific Intel motherboards (DH55TC and DH55PJ), as well as an up-to-date BIOS. The process also needs an Internet connection: before authorizing the upgrade, the unlock code and ID of the OEM need to be validated by Intel. One OEM that will participate in the scheme is Gateway; the upgrade package that Engadget posted was for that company's forthcoming SX2841-09e desktop that will be available from Best Buy.

Reactions to the scheme have varied, but a common criticism has been that it's unfair to charge customers just to unlock things that a processor can already do. As Cory Doctorow put it, these are crippled processors that you have to pay extra to unlock. If Intel is shipping G6950-class processors that actually have 4 MB cache and hyperthreading support, the company should just unlock the features for everyone. Some have even suggested that the upgrade mechanism will be hacked, to allow people to upgrade for free.

There's an upside

For end-users, the processor offers a potentially attractive upgrade option. The systems built around these parts will be low-end, in the ballpark of $500 or less. A $50 upgrade—that doesn't even require you to open the case—that can offer a performance boost of 25 percent or more (depending on how much benefit the user's workload can gain from hyperthreading) is an attractive proposition.

For system-builders too, there are attractive features: the reason that the OEM's ID is validated with Intel is because OEMs will receive kickbacks for any systems that get upgraded in this way through a revenue-sharing system. Intel also argues that the scheme will allow OEMs to simplify and consolidate their product lines—instead of having to offer a bunch of similar systems with different processors, manufacturers will be able to offer fewer different processor options, relying on end-user upgrades to reinstate the variation in specifications.

The cost of a G6951 processor plus its upgrade is more than the cost of a Core i3-530 ($113 in bulk), so in that sense is poor value for someone who knows they want that level of performance to start out with, but for its target market that is beside the point. A Core i3-based system will cost more up-front, and that's not what buyers of these systems are after. People aren't going to buy the upgrade as soon as they get their shiny new computer home from the store. Rather, it'll be a way of extending the life of an existing machine, and on those terms, the pricing is something of a bargain.

You might not like it, but it ain't new

Whether buyers will resent unlocking capabilities that their systems already have is harder to say. Intel's move is not without precedent. In fact, this kind of unlocking has been a feature of the computer market for decades. Many mainframe systems were sold with what was, in effect, a throttle to limit their performance. Upgrading the performance would be as simple as opening up the case and flicking a switch or cutting a wire.

More recently, Asus' P5P800 motherboard offered a similar kind of upgrade for its integrated audio. Install the right software, and new features become available. And Apple charged $4.99 for software to unlock the 802.11n features of many of its systems.

Moving from hardware into the software world, this kind of thing is routine. There are a million pieces of shareware that disable features until a license key is entered. A lot of enterprise-grade software has multiple pricing tiers with the more expensive versions supporting, say, more concurrent users or larger datasets, even though the software is fundamentally the same across all versions. More controversially, there's the decision of companies like EA to charge secondhand buyers for multiplayer access, resulting in the situation where the same licensed copy of the game either does or doesn't support multiplayer depending on who's playing it.

Though these decisions have been met with grumbles from the buying public—especially in the case of game unlocks—they've all been broadly accepted by that same public. People might resent paying extra for capabilities that, in a sense, they already "have," but when push comes to shove, they'll hand over the cash anyway.

Market realities of the processor business

A case can also be made that far from being a repellent money-grab, this is in fact an interesting way of reacting to realities of the microprocessor market. Intel sells many different processors, with a huge range of cache sizes, speed grades, and core counts; to that mix, there are also a number of features such as TXT and hyperthreading that are only found on certain parts. But Intel doesn't design a specific processor for each particular mix of cache size, speed, number of cores, and extra features.

Instead, the company designs a few processors that can do everything ("real" variations include core count, presence of QPI connections, number of memory channels, and a few other things), and then selectively disables features. Sometimes the decision is made for Intel—a chip might have a manufacturing defect that limits the amount of cache it can use, and not all chips can run at the same frequency within a given power envelope—but a lot of the time, the company is disabling functional hardware. For example, every Pentium G6950 processor has the hardware to do hyperthreading. It's just that it's been permanently disabled at the factory, because Intel's bean-counters have decided that that particular grade of processor won't have hyperthreading.

By offering software unlocks, users can reclaim these disabled features at a later date, if they decide that they'd be worthwhile. Given the choice between permanent disablement and unlockable upgrades, the latter is clearly the better option.

Intel is not alone in this, of course. Those mainframe manufacturers did the same, for the same reason as Intel: it doesn't make sense to manufacture different systems for each price point. AMD does it—those Phenom X3 processors are built with four cores, and sometimes can even have the fourth core re-enabled—NVIDIA does it—the GTX 470 is a GTX 480 with 32 shader cores disabled. Intel certainly takes the differentiation further than its competitors, but its overall approach is unexceptional.

Profit-making companies want to make a profit

If all Intel processors can support all the different features, some have argued that all Intel's processors should have these things unlocked. While that would obviously have some appeal—who wouldn't want the specs of a $1,000 CPU for $100—it ignores market realities. Remember, Intel wants to make a profit. Sure, the company would certainly be able to enable all the features on all its processors, but if it did so, it would no longer be able to charge many hundreds of dollars for the high-end parts.

It might still be able to differentiate according to clock speed, but there are limits even there; once Intel's fabs have got into the swing of making a new processor, it's fair to say that a large proportion of them will run at the top specified speed grade, if Intel wanted them to. Enabling the full range of a processor's capabilities would leave the company with just a handful of different models.

This leaves the company—the company that has an obligation to maximize its shareholder returns—with two options. It could drastically cut the range of models and increase the price of each processor to some kind of average, or it can artificially introduce variety by disabling features or running some parts at below their maximum possible frequency. If it did the former, a lot of people that are today gladly buying systems built around parts costing $90 or less would find themselves priced out of the market. Sure, it'd be great for people picking up a Core i7-980X for a few hundred bucks instead of its current $999, but it'd be lousy for those at the other end of the market. The "third" option—sell full-spec processors for bargain basement prices—isn't realistic given the desire for profit.

Which is why it's not a bad thing that Intel doesn't do that, and it's why selective disabling of processor features is here to stay. Some may be offended at, in some sense or other, not getting all the power their processor has to offer, but it was always like this. The new processors don't change that basic fact.

In the light of this, should we not be welcoming these new upgradable processors? They allow CPU manufacturers to address market realities, while also providing cheap, easy-to-use, waste-free upgrades to those who want them. Surely this gives consumers more options and better value.

Or to use Cory Doctorow's terminology, are we not now being given the choice between "crippled processors" that we can't pay extra to unlock, and a new generation of "crippled processors" that we can pay to unlock? It's hard to see how this is anything other than a step forward.

Prediction: It'll all just result in bizarre court cases when people upgrade their purchased hardware on their own via a hack tool. It'll all devolve into a 1st sale and property rights debate. Just like this thread.

I don't want software actively slowing down my CPU for no reason other than for Intel to make more $$$. I hope someone gets fired for even suggesting this.

This whole concept basically reveals the scam that is Intel's pricing structure. We now have proof that a $1000 dollar chip doesn't cost them anywhere near that to make. Your aunt will have that same chip in her $299 Dell special, but locked down so it runs like crap. So that begs the question... why were they charging you $1000 dollars for it?

Even if someone figures out how to hack the unlock (and they will;) is it really all that different from overclocking or enabling the extra cores on the AMD X3 procs?

The question for Intel is, do they make money off of this? They lose some money to overclocking as it is, so selling an unlock for OEM machines from Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc is just free money to them. This smells like a market experiment to me. They're already selling fully unlocked chips for the enthusiast set. This probably allows them to create fewer dies yet keep the same products... but we'll see how quickly/effectively the unlock codes are hacked.

A bigger concern I have than people hacking the unlock is that by releasing a tool to modify some part of the microcode Intel will also be giving an attack vector for more malicious activities. I first read about security researchers being worried about the possibility of a rootkit being installed in a processors microcode. At the time I didn't think it a particularly realistic concern because the microcode couldn't be modified after leaving the factory, with this out that will no longer be the case.

I don't want software actively slowing down my CPU for no reason other than for Intel to make more $$$. I hope someone gets fired for even suggesting this.

This whole concept basically reveals the scam that is Intel's pricing structure. We now have proof that a $1000 dollar chip doesn't cost them anywhere near that to make. Your aunt will have that same chip in her $299 Dell special, but locked down so it runs like crap. So that begs the question... why were they charging you $1000 dollars for it?

2 reasons they charge $1000 for it - $millions of R&D need to be recouped, and they charge what the market will bear.

I don't like the idea of software-unlockable hardware. I'll be steering clear of this type of processor, simply because I don't want to support the business model.

<somehow I see this in the horizon>When you buy the Intel chip, you're actually only buying the license to use it. So if you hack it, you''re in violation of the DMCA, and we'll have the legal right to issue a CPU shut off command (which permanently disables your processor). When you're done with your computer (or buying a new one), you cannot sell your old computer (with the CPU) to a third party, that will be in violation of the EULA. But feel free to contact us, and for a small fee, we will send you a SASE where you can send your unused processor to have it recycled. Have a great day!

A bigger concern I have than people hacking the unlock is that by releasing a tool to modify some part of the microcode Intel will also be giving an attack vector for more malicious activities. I first read about security researchers being worried about the possibility of a rootkit being installed in a processors microcode. At the time I didn't think it a particularly realistic concern because the microcode couldn't be modified after leaving the factory, with this out that will no longer be the case.

Yeah, that's where I first went with this. What I've liked about hardware is just that: it's hard. Firmware updates being something done few and far between, if at all. Having software tinker in the machine's guts like this just gives me an uneasy feeling, knowing that your *processor* could end up getting infected.

Some may be offended at, in some sense or other, not getting all the power their processor has to offer, but it was always like this. The new processors don't change that basic fact.

That's pretty much the crux of it. This is a win-win for Intel and the consumer. Intel only has manufacture one piece of hardware and the consumer gets an easy, non-technical, way to upgrade their PC.

Yup. Sure, there will be (are) folks who will take the "Intel is slowing down my CPU!" derp angle on this, but the (relatively small percentage) of users that care about this will just have to do their homework and make sure they buy CPUs that meet their philosophical requirements.

From the rest of the market's standpoint, it seems relatively neural, and from Intel's viewpoint it, as you said, will let them greatly streamline their production process.

A bigger concern I have than people hacking the unlock is that by releasing a tool to modify some part of the microcode Intel will also be giving an attack vector for more malicious activities. I first read about security researchers being worried about the possibility of a rootkit being installed in a processors microcode. At the time I didn't think it a particularly realistic concern because the microcode couldn't be modified after leaving the factory, with this out that will no longer be the case.

CPU microcode is already field-upgradeable. Linux users can even take a look at the 'microcode' module to see how that upgrade process works.

Yeah, that's where I first went with this. What I've liked about hardware is just that: it's hard. Firmware updates being something done few and far between, if at all. Having software tinker in the machine's guts like this just gives me an uneasy feeling, knowing that your *processor* could end up getting infected.

I don't want software actively slowing down my CPU for no reason other than for Intel to make more $$$. I hope someone gets fired for even suggesting this.

This whole concept basically reveals the scam that is Intel's pricing structure. We now have proof that a $1000 dollar chip doesn't cost them anywhere near that to make. Your aunt will have that same chip in her $299 Dell special, but locked down so it runs like crap. So that begs the question... why were they charging you $1000 dollars for it?

It's the publishing industry pricing model: Cost of printing a single book is much more than the cover price. Cost of a book printed in a 1 million book print run is much less than the cover price. The profits go to the content creator. With Intel same thing, just substitute R&D costs for author costs...

Artificial market segmentation is how companies take away more of the consumer surplus. It is most definitely not a good thing for the consumer. I hope it gets hacked.

It's bad for the consumer buying the $999 processors. It's great news for the ones buying the $90 processors, since the profit maximizing price for a single processor line is surely greater than that.

And as long as the consumer buying the $999 processors is getting utility greater than that of the $999, they're still doing well from the deal. And if they aren't, that's their own fault for buying the damn thing in the first place.

And Apple charged $4.99 for software to unlock the 802.11n features of many of its systems.

If I recall there was another reason for this... when the product was released the 802.11n spec hadn't been finalized, so they disabled it on the hardware. To re-enable the feature once the spec had been finalized, they had to charge under some sort of accounting rule or else they had to move some portion of profit from previous quarters to the one where they enabled 802.11n. Questionable as to why they didn't enable it to begin with; but by charging for the update they avoided a lot of accounting complexity.

Personal feelings aside, this is a win for Intel, instead of just selling higher binned parts at a lower price with no chance of recouping the cost,to supply the market for the lower binned parts when supply of those lower binned parts have runned out. Intel can now sell these upgradable parts at the lower binned price with a chance that they can recoup the cost of the higher binned part by selling the upgrades.

And Apple charged $4.99 for software to unlock the 802.11n features of many of its systems.

If I recall there was another reason for this... when the product was released the 802.11n spec hadn't been finalized, so they disabled it on the hardware. To re-enable the feature once the spec had been finalized, they had to charge under some sort of accounting rule or else they had to move some portion of profit from previous quarters to the one where they enabled 802.11n. Questionable as to why they didn't enable it to begin with; but by charging for the update they avoided a lot of accounting complexity.

So basically, the only people who will be paying for such "features" will be the ones who don't know how to download a crack for free, and many of them won't have the slightest inclination or idea how to upgrade anyway.

Sorry, but if I pay for something, I refuse to pay more to uncripple it.

I think Intel needs to wake up. Not because this is necessarily a dumb idea, but because they aren't going to be profitable and have the same market that they've had for a couple decades. They should be spending their time taking on the mobile and console markets, and realize that they might as well send every chip out the door fully enabled, because they have fewer and fewer customers that care about performance. If they don't change their behavior soon, they're going to get marginalized.

They still make billions (no, it doesn't all go to R&D), but for how long?

If I recall there was another reason for this... when the product was released the 802.11n spec hadn't been finalized, so they disabled it on the hardware. To re-enable the feature once the spec had been finalized, they had to charge under some sort of accounting rule or else they had to move some portion of profit from previous quarters to the one where they enabled 802.11n. Questionable as to why they didn't enable it to begin with; but by charging for the update they avoided a lot of accounting complexity.

The thing is, their accounting claims never really stood up to scrutiny. iOS 4 adds functionality to my (previous generation) iPod touch; I get multitasking and a bunch of other things. But Apple still gave me the firmware for free. The SarbOx stuff was nonsense. I mean, it's not impossible that Apple had its accounts set up in a particular way that caused a problem with SarbOx, but it certainly wasn't required that they do so. Other companies give away free improvements to products that people have already bought all the time. Apple could have; it was just beneficial not to.

Eh, it's just a way to better leverage processors that are binned to a lower speed to meet demand. The CPUs would have been binned at the lower speed anyway, but now customers have a way to do a cheap and easy upgrade if they find that they're limited by what they purchased. Intel's only going to offer this plan when they oversupply CPUs.

Not seeing how this is any different than how Microsoft sells a number of its products. Enter a different license key and you get more features. Of course, it's still utter crap. Give me everything for one low price instead of creating artificial price points to gouge customers. I've never understood treating your customers (the place all your money comes from) so poorly.

FTA: "The cost of a G6951 processor plus its upgrade is more than the cost of a Core i3-530 ($113 in bulk), so in that sense is poor value for someone who knows they want that level of performance to start out with, but for its target market that is beside the point"

Exactly. People that are buying budget machines probably don't know what HyperThreading is, or what a cache is. Do they _need_ it? We could argue about that until the cows come home. I am sure there are a large number of users that the lack of these features isn't going to make a darned bit of difference to their web browsing experience, or to how fast their email loads up.

Like-processors can overclock to differing degrees, but manufacturers test and rate the processor based on reliability under normal thermal conditions. So, if a 1GHz CPU can overclock to 1.2GHz, but requires much more elaborate cooling than would normally be in the computer, then it will not be rated at 1.2GHz. This is common practice, and makes sense. I imagine that there is also a certain amount of deliberate throttling because it is cheaper to manufacture two of the same chip and then throttle one than to manufacture two identical chips that differ only in clock speed. Either way, while you might be able to squeeze a lot more speed out of the processor, the next person may not be able to eek anything out of their CPU. In other words, YMMV.

I am curious. Other than giving the user the ability to enable locked features, how is this any different from what Intel was doing back in the days of the 386/486? The SX line was simply the DX line with the co-processor disabled. Same fab, same chip. Not everyone needed the DX, so in order to keep manufacturing costs down (and either consumer costs down or profits up) they decide to simply use the same chips.

Ultimately, I think that this plan stinks only if Intel is making more profit at the expense of the consumer. If they are actually able to save the consumer money by lowering manufacturing costs and passing on the savings, then great. However, it sounds like this is not the case, at least when you factor in the "upgrade". It sounds like the consumer is getting ripped off.

So, all code has to run through whatever software layer in the chip to check for "activation". Won't this make it run slower than it might, even when the CPU's been "activated"?

Also, does this programmability bring any new attack vectors like DanNeely said above?

Other than that yes, I can understand the pricing scheme - Intel makes just one part, saves huge amounts of money in production lines, recoups R&D from people shelling out for the "unlocked" CPU and offers a cheaper version for those who don't need all the bells & whistles. But I'm sure that won't sit well with many consumers. Let's see how long it survives hacking

I don't want software actively slowing down my CPU for no reason other than for Intel to make more $$$. I hope someone gets fired for even suggesting this.

Sounds like it's hardware, or more firmware, than software. And no, nobody will be fired.

Quote:

This whole concept basically reveals the scam that is Intel's pricing structure. We now have proof that a $1000 dollar chip doesn't cost them anywhere near that to make. Your aunt will have that same chip in her $299 Dell special, but locked down so it runs like crap. So that begs the question... why were they charging you $1000 dollars for it?

This is proof that a $1000 chip doesn't cost $1000 to manufacture. How much did it cost to "make" the first one, though? Newsflash: engineering costs money. This is how Intel recoups that money, while providing processors at multiple price points to serve the whole market.

The alternative wouldn't be selling all of them for $100. It would be selling all of them for...well, who knows. Could be $200, could be $300. Definitely more than $100, though.

EDIT: Is it really a revelation to most of you that the retail price of an item may be only loosely correlated to the cost of the physical materials and manufacturing?